I don't get Live Earth

[Lise]

I don't get it. You get these groups of rock stars together to make us aware of a problem that we already know exists.

  To top it off.... the organizers probably used a heck lot of energy to perform whatever it is they're performing, not to mention these A-lister stars who have to travel there via jets or whatever to do the concert??? Way to blow the gasket off the carbon emission, folks.

  Money better spent on scientists to help combat climate changes. Energy by individual singers and rockstars to do something simple like plant a friggin' tree or pick up garbage or organized something else. NOT THROW a blooming concert.

[P.C.]

That's a really good point Lise.  It more often than not comes across as very self serving.  If each of these stars devoted the same amount of time within each of their own communities, a great deal more would be accomplished within the very cause that they are promoting.

  When it comes right down to it, singing won't change a thing.

[Marik]

Good point, but a lot of us here might know about climate change. What about people living in other parts of the world? Shanghai? Johannesburg? I wouldn't think the people there are as aware about climate change than we are. Then again, how would I know that?  

[Sportsdude]

these events aren't self serving. They actually do what they set out to do. For example the last one Live Aid got the G8 countries to pledge 50 billion dollars in aid to Africa. Now the countries haven't done so well after the pledge but it wakes politicians up.

The big Africa concert in the 80's did the same thing. Saved millions of lives they raised 250 million dollars to stop hunger.

And George Harrison's Bangledesh concert in the 70's helped so many bangledesh children who were starving the UN says the number is around 5 million people saved from hunger.

  This concert is to make politicians aware people are fed up and it also gets the message out, you'd be surprised who many people don't know about this.

[P.C.]

I'm certainly all for anything that raises awareness, and if it did at least that...... that's good.

I think that what Lise was saying about the excessive lifestyles of the stars that are 'bringing the message' is somewhat true....but it is also bringing with it an air of hypocrisy.

  Most of these stars 'carbon footprints' are in huge excess of the average person.....and most of them agreed with that, but still aren't willing to fore-go the private jets etc to further their own agendas.

Madonna's own carbon footprint is estimated to be 100 times that of the average Briton's.

I think if they had all made the effort to change their own ways before asking everyone else to change theirs, would be far more effective.

  Live in an 'earth friendly' way for a year......then come and tell the world that they're behind this cause.  People who cruise around in stretched limos and private jets can't effectively tell the world to ride a bike.      

     

[Sportsdude]

very true. The rich have to make a pledge to ditch the private jets and the typical excesses of being rich and put their money where there mouth is.  

[Lise]

Couldn't agree with you more, PC. You took the words right out of my mouth.

  The one thing that bugs me about the rich and famous is why do you have to have like 10 cars or more? It's stupidity. Have two at the most but 10 or more? For what purpose? Mr. Swazernagger has Hummers by the dozen yet he advocates climate changes. Hypocracy indeed.

[Sportsdude]

Michael Bloomberg mayor of New York is cool. He's a billionaire and he takes the subway to work, says taking a limo is pointless. lol

but usually the celebrities don't practice what they preach.
Its always 'we want you to do this, now watch me get into my private jet, ain't it cool!'
 

[Russ]

They are rock stars. WTF do they have to do with making policy changes and political statements. They are here today and gone tomorrow. They should have nothing to do with this type of stuff and should if they are as intelligent as they say they are know well enough to stay out of this.

  Umm, hello? Hillary Swank? Now theres a good environmental role model for our children.

[kitten]

It didn't make much sense to me either.  When you consider how much ostentatious luxury they take for granted, they are the last ones to set an example for anyone.

[Sportsdude]

I guess its how our culture has evolved sadly. Nothing gets done until 'celebrity' is behind it. Polticians don't listen to the regular people anymore so the celebrities have become the vessel or loud speaker for the general population. Nothing gets 'going' until a 'big name' is behind some cause.  

[P.C.]

I don't begrudge the rich and famous for living like the rich and famous.  I just have a problem with the ego involved with those that choose to preach something they don't practise.....the thinking that just because THEY SAY something, that it should make a difference.    

[Sportsdude]

they say something about a lot of things because they use their celebrity as a vehicle. If a normal citizen (especially in this country) tries to start something a movement, they'll get laughed at by certain media channels and politicians.
For example there was a rally for the poor and a news paper I throw said in an editorial front page headline "why should we care about poor people?"
We've all become cynics.
 

[P.C.]

they say something about a lot of things because they use their celebrity as a vehicle.

  I think it only appeals to people who are suckers for celebrity.....but I doubt it's effectivness.  Their celebrity means nothing to me.  It's no different than Joan Rivers trying to tout the 'evils' of plastic surgery. She's a celebrity.....but would you take her seriously?  If not.....why not ?  It's no different to me than what this 'concert' represents.

  If a normal citizen (especially in this country) tries to start something a movement, they'll get laughed at by certain media channels and politicians.

  I think the 'normal citizens' who could 'start something' would be children. Nothing would speak louder to me on this issue, than todays children....... who in their future will be faced with fear and uncertainty for THEIR children.  


     

[Sportsdude]

  P.C. wrote:
I think the 'normal citizens' who could 'start something' would be children. Nothing would speak louder to me on this issue, than todays children.......

This is the reason why celebrities are used. My generation, generation Y is not political. They've been depoliticialized. We simply don't have the passion our parents had with causes. We don't care. We've become commercialized to the point that as Kennedy said "What can you do for your country" its now "I don't care I rather care about Angelina Jolie and Paris Hilton."  We're caught up in celebrity as its somehow the 'ultimate american dream'.  So we somehow respect celebrity bimbos more then people that are actually in charge. Therefore these organizers use celebrities because that's who my generation listens to, sadly.

Instead of kids growing up with the mindset "I want to change the world and make it a better place." Its now become "I want to be famous!" "I want to be rich!"